Editorial and Reviewers Policy

We at DYSONA journals appreciate the time and consideration of our respected editors and referees, and we believe that editorial and peer reviewers' effort is the backbone of high-quality academic publishing. We invite our editors and reviewers to read COPE recommendations in editorial and review assignments:

For Editors: Code of conduct and best practice guidelines for journal editors

For Reviewers: COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

Furthermore, kindly read the following guidelines inspired by COPE and ICMJE guidelines:



The editor-in-chief and editorials in DYSONA – Applied Science have the following responsibilities

  • Editorial assignments: The editor-in-chief assigns each submitted paper to the handling editors based on their expertise. The handling editor is expected to accept or reject the assignment in a reasonable time. The editor-in-chief can handle the submitted paper of their area of interest without assigning it to other editorials.
  • Initial inspection: The editor-in-chief and handling editors consider the general quality of each submitted paper before further processing. A paper that does not fulfill the minimum criteria for submission (i.e., high similarities, poor language, or weak style) should be rejected without further consideration.
  • Protect individual data: Since DYSONA journals adopt a double-blinded peer review system, only the editor-in-chief and handling editor can access authors' data. All communications are confidential and should remain like this throughout processing. Revealing the names of assigned reviewers without their consent is unacceptable.
  • Conflict of interest: The handling editor should report any suspected non-reported conflicts of interest to the editor-in-chief. The editors are responsible for publishing the provided conflict of interest statements after manuscript acceptance.
  • Fair play: The editors should only judge the submitted works based on quality without regard to race, gender, religious belief, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
  • Report of misconduct: The handling editor should report any suspected scientific misconduct or reference manipulation to the editor-in-chief. These concerns include but are not limited to ethical infringements, methodologies misuse, scientific inaccuracies, data manipulation, results fabrication and misinterpretation, false citing, reference manipulation, and redundant citing. The editor-in-chief might address or permit the handling editor to address misconduct allegations.
  • Reviewer invitation: The editor-in-chief can ask the handling editors only to nominate referees or give them the capacity to invite referees. The editor should nominate/invite referees who have no conflict of interest with the author or the submitted work.
  • Editorial decision: A minimum of two valid reviews should be provided before an editorial decision can be made. The editors' post-review decisions should be based on the reviewers' and their own verdicts. According to the capacities given to the handling editor, the decision is sent to the authors directly or sent first to the editor-in-chief for further consideration.
  • Editorial relation with authors: The handling editor (whether an editorial board member or the editor-in-chief) is responsible for communicating before publication. The editor-in-chief is responsible for post-publication communications. The handling editor sends referees' verdicts and comments to the authors (as are) and should include further editorial instructions, comments, and questions regarding manuscript structure (based on journal requirements) or ethical and scientific conduct if needed.
  • Editorial relation with readers: The editor-in-chief is responsible for post-publication communications with readers. Handling of all post-publication cases is initiated by the editor-in-chief, who can decide whether the handling editor of the published paper should be involved or not.
  • Ethics: All editors are asked to be acquainted with COPE workflows (check the figure below) and core practices in addition to our publication ethics guidelines, peer review workflow, and guidelines for authors.


COPE flowcharts in relation to COPE's core practices (DOI for each flowchart is provided)



The reviewer's responsibilities consist of the following:

  • Invitation response: Manuscript title and abstract/summary are included in the invitation letter. Therefore, the reviewers are asked to make a decision whether they will accept the invitation or not based on the general topic of the manuscript and its summary. No further information (full text, data, or graphical abstract) can be provided at this stage. The response should be provided in a reasonably timely manner, especially if the referee would not be able to review due to other responsibilities. By agreeing to review, the referee declares having adequate knowledge of the subject. However, the referee can declare not to be able to review the manuscript or certain parts later on.
  • Conflict of interest: The reviewers should report any suspected non-reported conflicts of interest before, during, or after the review to the editor-in-chief.
  • Double-blind peer review integrity: The main advantage of a double-blind peer review system is to maintain integrity in manuscript handling based on quality and regardless of authors' names and affiliations. In some cases, referees might recognize the works of other scientists in the field. In these cases, the reviewers should report any conflict of interest that might influence their reasonable judgment of the handled work. It is the editor's responsibility to decide the validity of review outcomes.
  • Involvement: The reviewers should decline the review if they were involved in any way in the preparation of the manuscript.
  • Review report: After review, the referees are asked to answer a questionnaire regarding all aspects of the manuscript. According to this questionnaire, a general mark will be given to the manuscript. Furthermore, referees' comments for authors and editor should be provided. Reviewers' comments to the authors will be shared with the authors along with the editorial decision. However, the comments sent to the editor will remain confidential between the referee and the editor. A final recommendation (rejection, major revisions, minor revisions, acceptance) should also be provided. A file with more detailed comments or instructions can be uploaded when reviewers submit their verdict.
  • Integrity: All comments and concerns about research integrity should be shared with the editor. These concerns include but are not limited to ethical infringements, methodologies misuse, scientific inaccuracies, data manipulation, results fabrication and misinterpretation, false citing, reference manipulation, and redundant citing.
  • Ethics: All reviewers are asked to be acquainted with COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers in addition to our publication ethics guidelines and peer review workflow.